"Goble-de-gook" on Guns in Ohio

Folks,

Steve Goble, authorized journalist of the Mansfield, Ohio, News-Journal assures us that the "new congress will have higher priorities than guns." You may find his opinion here:

http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/article/20081123/OPINION02/811230305

You may also have guessed that I don't agree with his soothing words, calculated to debunk us firearms paranoids who sniff Obama trouble in the wind.

Here is my response to him, and his editor. You may also write him at:

sgoble@nncogannett.com

Enjoy,

Mike

III




Mansfield News-Journal columnist Steve Goble says, " I don't think our Second Amendment rights are in any real danger" from an Obama administration. "Take my word for it, says Goble, "Nobody is coming after your guns." This would come as a surprise to the Obamanoids themselves, who have posted this gem of proposed gun gontrol on their official transition website:

Obama and Biden . . .support closing the gun show loophole and . . .making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent. -- http://change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy_agenda/.

Goble sets up a number of straw man arguments and rhetorically knocks them down. Illustrative of these is:

"On one side, we have those who see every single proposed weapon restriction as a start down a slippery slope toward the government taking away ALL guns from EVERYBODY." (emphasis supplied, MBV)

It is not necessary sew every citizen's mouth shut and institute written thought control to abrogate the First Amendment, which presumably Mr. Goble knows, as he is a sure-'nuff official journalist. Let's just take the two points promised us by The Lightworker's Internet myrmidons above.

The so-called "gun show loophole" is in fact a federal seizure of control over all private, intrastate sales of arms. Recall that the constitutional legal figleaf they claim as basis for all of the gun control laws of this country since 1934, is the INTERSTATE commerce clause. And how does this give them the right to interfere with private, intrastate transfers (including, in some versions of this monstrous bill, the right to hand down your granddaddy's shotgun to your son)? Why it doesn't of course. Not even King George the Third was so grasping of his subject's liberties, and the Founders shot at his redcoats for much less.


Next is the reinstitution of the ban on the manufacture and sale of semiautomatic rifles of military appearance. We have been promised by its sponsors that this time "it will have teeth" and will at the least likely ban possession of large-caliber rifles. Presumably, since Goble seems so willing to negotiate away other people's property and liberty, he would go along with these "reasonable, common sense restrictions" (to use the gun banners' current language of the lie).

Says Goble,


So, we ought to draw a line somewhere. We can argue over where that line should be and who gets to cross it and all that -- but it doesn't mean the Democrats will take an eraser to the Bill of Rights.

If we were to say to Goble that the ideas some people advocate in print are dangerous and deadly, and that therefore we have decided that he no longer can print newspapers of more than 2 pages, or can't use red ink, or can't sell his opinions across state lines without permission, he would rebel and rightly so. The advocates of his tyranny would say, "Hey, you can still say what you want, it's not like we took an eraser to the Bill of Rights."

He would dispute that of course and he would resist. Possibly, if he has both the principles and the guts at the same time, he would resist to the point of violence. He would be right to do so. The fact of the matter is that the same gun owners who he is complacently happy to see stripped of their rights would be the first to leap, semi-auto rifle in hand, to his defense if government thugs came to wreck his press or terrorize his news carriers.

And why should we do any less than a currently-confused editorial writer of Goble-de-gook when it comes to defending our own liberties? Indeed, we are the ones with the firearms, aren't we? The fact is that some of us HAVE drawn the line. It is where we stand now. For seventy plus years we have been pushed back from the free exercise of our God-given inalienable rights when it comes to firearms. We will back up no further. If the Obamanoids draw the line behind us and order us to step back, we will push back. And there will be a fight the likes of which this country has not seen since 1861-1865. During that fight, the administration will no doubt see fit to "take all the guns away from everybody." So Goble, if he is in fact a gun owner and wishes to remain so, ought to leap to the defense of our property and our rights NOW. For if we fight to preserve our property and liberty and lose, his will also be forfeit.

Obama makes much of claiming the mantle of Lincoln. That he does so without irony is amazing to me. Lincoln's election sparked a civil war that killed 600,000 plus of his fellow citizens. Is that what he wants to emulate? We will know by his actions in the coming months and years. Until then, Mr. Goble, forgive us for believing what his campaign says he wants. It is the only guide we have, since you and your fellow journalistic hagiographers didn't do your job during the campaign and let us know who this guy really is.

Mike Vanderboegh